Suspension System with Optimized Damper Response for Wide Range of Events

ABSTRACT

An analytical methodology for the specification of progressive optimal compression damping of a damper of a suspension system to negotiate a multiplicity of severe events, yet provides very acceptable ride quality and handling during routine events. The damping response of the damper is optimized based upon a progressive optimal constrained events damping function derived from a low envelope curve incorporated with a predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below a predetermined wheel center velocity, u 1 , based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, whereby the low envelope curve is constructed utilizing a one degree of freedom nonlinear mechanical system model or a quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application invention is a continuation-in-part of patent application Ser. No. 11/939,698, filed on Nov. 14, 2007, which application is presently pending, and which application and the present application claim the priority benefit of provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/967,209, filed on Aug. 31, 2007 which has now passed its one year pendancy term.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to motor vehicle suspension systems, wherein the motor vehicle body is sprung in relation to each of its wheels via a respective spring-damper combination. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for providing a suspension system with optimized damper response based upon the damper being adjusted in accordance with a progressive optimal constrained events damping function applicable to a multiplicity of jounce events, including those involving maximum wheel displacements

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Motor vehicle suspension systems are configured so that the wheels are able to follow elevational changes in the road surface as the vehicle travels therealong. When a rise in the road surface is encountered, the suspension responds in “jounce” in which the wheel is able to move upwardly relative to the frame of the vehicle. On the other hand, when a dip in the road surface is encountered, the suspension responds in “rebound” in which the wheel is able to move downwardly relative to the frame of the vehicle. In either jounce or rebound, a spring (i.e., coil, leaf, torsion, etc.) is incorporated at the wheel in order to provide a resilient response to the respective vertical movements with regard to the vehicle frame. However, in order to prevent wheel bouncing and excessive vehicle body motion, a damper (i.e., shock absorber, strut, etc.) is placed at the wheel to dampen wheel bounce. Additionally, when the limit of jounce is encountered, it is customary to provide a maximum jounce impact absorber in the form of a bumper cushion.

Referring now to FIGS. 1 through 1B, components of a conventional suspension system 10 are depicted which allow for jounce and rebound at a wheel of the subject motor vehicle 12.

Firstly with regard to FIG. 1, a control arm 14 is pivotally mounted with respect to the frame 16, wherein, in the depicted example, a torsion spring 18 is utilized to provide resilient response for the jounce and rebound of the control arm relative to the frame. To provide control over the rate of jounce and rebound, a damper in the form of a shock absorber 20 is connected pivotally at one end to the frame 16 and connected pivotally at the other end to the control arm 14. Alternatively, a damper in the form of a strut may be used in the suspension system, as for example disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,971. To provide cushioning in the event a maximum jounce occurs, a jounce bumper cushion 22 is mounted to the frame 16 which is resiliently compressed by movement of the control arm as jounce approaches its maximum.

Referring next to FIG. 1A, the internal components and operational aspects of a conventional shock absorber 20′ (a remote reservoir high pressure gas type shock absorber being shown merely by way of example) can be understood. A valved piston 30 is reciprocably movable within a shock cylinder 32. A shock rod 34 is attached to the valved piston 30 and is guided by a shock rod guide 36 at one end of the shock cylinder 32. Below the valved piston 30 and above the shock rod guide 36 is a mutually interacting rebound limiter 38. The instantaneous position of the valved piston 30 within the shock cylinder 32 defines a first interior portion 32F and a second interior portion 32S of the interior of the shock cylinder. In the example depicted at FIG. 1A, the pressurization in the first and second interior portions 32F, 32S is provided by an hydraulic fluid O which is pressurized by pressurized gas, preferably nitrogen, G acting on a divider piston 40 of an hydraulic fluid reservoir cylinder 42, wherein a tube 44, including a base valve 44V, connects the hydraulic fluid between the hydraulic fluid reservoir cylinder and the first interior portion. In operation, as the control arm undergoes jounce, the hydraulic fluid is displaced from the first interior portion into the hydraulic fluid reservoir cylinder, causing the pressure of the nitrogen gas to increase as its volume decreases and thereby causing an increased hydraulic pressure on the valved piston 30 in a direction toward the shock rod guide. Hydraulic fluid is able to directionally meter through valving 46 of the valved piston 30 in a manner which provides damping.

Referring next to FIG. 1B, the internal structure of a conventional jounce bumper cushion 22 can be understood. An optional skin 50 of a compliant material (i.e., having energy absorbing or damping properties) may, or may not, overlay an interior of resilient elastomeric material 52, which may be for example a rubber, rubber-like material, or micro-cellular urethane. In operation as the control arm approaches maximum jounce, the jounce bumper cushion 22 compresses, delivering a reaction force on the control arm which increases with increasing compression so as to minimize the severity of impact of the control arm with respect to the frame at the limit of jounce. Immediately following the jounce, the rebound involves the energy absorbed by the compression of the conventional bumper cushion being delivered resiliently back to the suspension.

In the art of motor vehicle suspension systems, it is known that a conventional jounce bumper cushion and related dampers can show wear. It is also known that when the energy absorbed from a particular bump or dip exceeds the capacity of a conventional jounce bumper cushion, a hard mechanical stop is engaged. This abrupt transfer of jounce force and energy to the frame manifests itself in the passenger compartment as a sharp jolt, which can create load management issues in addition to the discomfort of a rough ride. Further, in order for the frame to accept such impact loads, the structure of the frame must be engineered for an appropriate strength, which is undesirable from the standpoint of the added vehicle weight such structures must inherently entail.

Vehicle suspension engineering has traditionally focused on ride and handling as this pertains to body and wheel relative motion with respect to the body below about 1.3 m/s (meters per second). However, the suspension travel requirements in a vehicle are mainly driven by severe events which generate maximum displacements of the wheel relative to the body. These severe events, such as when the vehicle encounters a deep and steep-walled pothole, can generate wheel velocities (relative to the body) of up to 9 m/s.

An approach pursued by Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) of Munich, Germany, is described in European Patent Application EP 1,569,810 B1, published on Sep. 7, 2005; which application is parent to U.S. Patent Application publication 2006/0243548 A1, published on Nov. 2, 2006.

The object of the BMW disclosure of EP 1,569,810 B1 is to provide a vibration damping method on a motor vehicle wheel suspension by means of a hydraulic vibration damper which prevents great loads on the vehicle body and chassis caused by very large vertical velocities of the wheel, e.g., when traveling over potholes. According to the BMW disclosure, in a hydraulic vibration damper for a motor vehicle, a method of vibration damping on a wheel suspension is used by BMW, characterized in that the damping force of the vibration damper increases as a function of piston speed, especially in the piston speed range of essentially 0 to 2 m/s, at first increasing slowly, essentially linearly, and then, especially above a piston speed of essentially 2 m/s, increasing according to a highly progressive function. Further according to the BMW disclosure, through a suitable choice, design and construction of vibration damper valves or by otherwise influencing the hydraulic resistances in the vibration damper, it is possible to implement a characteristic which is generated by damping forces known from the state of the art in the piston speed range up to the end of the range that is relevant for comfort, and beyond this piston speed range, an extreme progression in the damper characteristic is induced to decelerate the accelerated masses to a greater extent.

While the BMW disclosure seeks to provide a solution to the long-standing problem of damping excessively large wheel-to-body velocities while attempting to maintain acceptable ride and handling for low velocities, the disclosure requires an ad hoc reliance upon a presupposed and essential damper curve which is devoid of any underlying physics which supports any of the curve aspects. Thus, what yet remains needed in the art is an analytical methodology to predict damping curves which truly achieve the goal of damping excessively large wheel-to-body velocities while attempting to maintain acceptable ride and handling for low velocities.

Of additional note is Japan Society of Automotive Engineers, JSAE technical paper 9306714 by Miyazaki, Kiyoaki, Yasai, Hirofumi, “A study of ride improvement of the bus”, JSAE Autumn Convention Nagoya, Japan Oct. 19-21, 1993, wherein the authors confirmed that a progressive damping characteristic is effective for reducing the pitching and impact vibration.

Of further note is Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE technical paper 2006-01-1984 by Benoit Lacroix, Patrice Seers and Zhaoheng Liu, “A Passive Nonlinear Damping Design for a Road Race Car Application”, wherein a nonlinear passive damping design is proposed to optimize the handling performance of an SAE Formula car in terms of roll and pitch responses.

Progressive damping is thought of as an enabler to reduce harsh impact, ride input feel when encountering severe events through the method of maintaining a predefined load in jounce and reducing engagement into the jounce suspension stop. It is also needed to develop enablers to reduce total jounce travel so that a given vehicle could be trimmed lower to enable competitive styling cues. Trimming a vehicle lower usually increases the level of harshness for an event such as a deep pothole and other severe events.

What remains needed in the art, therefore, is an analytical methodology for the specification of a progressive optimal constrained events damping function enabling a motor vehicle suspension system to negotiate a multiplicity of severe events, such as a multiplicity of potholes, with reduced harshness, yet provides very acceptable ride quality and handling during routine events, such as common road surfaces, limits peak loads on the fame structure, reduces wheel travel, and enables lower trim height.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is an analytical methodology for the specification of a progressive optimal constrained events damping function enabling a motor vehicle suspension system to negotiate a multiplicity of severe events, such as a multiplicity of potholes, with reduced harshness, yet provides very acceptable ride quality and handling during routine events, such as common road surfaces, limits peak loads on the frame structure, reduces wheel travel, and enables lower trim height.

A method to provide a progressive optimal unconstrained event damping function of the wheel assembly with respect to the body, employing a one degree of freedom (1DOF) nonlinear mechanical system model, is generated from equations of motion of the wheel center of the wheel assembly with no initial external forces, no initial displacement, and the total force acting on the wheel center is essentially constant (hereafter referred to simply as “constant total force”) during the wheel center's deceleration from an initial velocity U₀ to a velocity of zero. The constant total force is related to a determined travel length of the wheel center such that when the wheel center is at the determined travel length, its velocity is zero, the damper force is zero and the suspension spring is compressed the determined travel length by which the suspension spring force is equal to the constant total force and when the wheel center is at zero displacement its velocity is U₀, the suspension spring is uncompressed with respect to equilibrium by which the suspension spring force is zero, and the damper force is equal to the constant total force. With the above conditions, the amount of energy dissipated by the damper is maximized and the total load on the body is minimized, whereby a progressive optimal unconstrained event damping function is obtained which is valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the predetermined travel length and velocities from U₀ to zero.

The suspension spring may include coil spring, jounce bumper, mounts, and other suspension compliances. Suspension spring force as a function of wheel center travel can be determined in the lab through the standard technique, where the tire patches are actuated vertically in jounce and rebound while the force is measured through the force tables and wheel transducer systems.

In practice, a predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below a wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, is based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, and should not be altered therefrom.

A method to provide a progressive optimal constrained event damping function of the wheel assembly with respect to the body, employing a one degree of freedom (1DOF) nonlinear mechanical system model, depicted in FIG. 2, in which the predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below or equal to a wheel center velocity of u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, is not altered, is generated as described below:

1. A progressive optimal constrained damper force is obtained from equations of motion of the wheel center with no initial external forces, an initial displacement x₀ when the initial velocity is U₀, and the total force acting on the wheel center is constant during the wheel center's deceleration from a velocity U₀ to an empirically determined velocity u₂. The constant total force acting on the wheel center is related to equations of motion of the wheel center and predetermined vehicle parameters.

2. A smooth, continuous damping force transition function is obtained, preferably approximating a step function, producing a damping force from the wheel center velocity u₁ to an empirically determined wheel center velocity u₂ greater than u₁, but neighboring, u₁.

3. The predetermined damper force acting on the wheel assembly is used below or equal to a wheel assembly velocity u₁.

The constant total force is related to a determined travel length of the wheel center such that when the wheel center is at the determined travel length, its velocity is zero, the damper force is zero and the suspension spring is compressed the determined travel length by which the suspension spring force is equal to the constant total force and when the wheel center is at displacement x₀ its velocity is U₀, the suspension spring is compressed by x₀.

With the above conditions, the amount of energy dissipated by the damper is maximized and the total load on the body is minimized whereby a progressive optimal constrained event damping function is obtained valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length and velocities from U₀ to zero.

However, a first progressive optimal constrained event damping function valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length and velocities from a first initial velocity U₀₁, associated with a first event such as a first pothole, to zero will not be an optimal constrained event damping function valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length and velocities from a second initial velocity U₀₂, associated with a second event such as a second pothole, to zero. Each wheel center velocity event has a progressive optimal constrained event damping function depending on the peak initial wheel center velocity, but the optimal constrained event damping function for one wheel center velocity event is not an optimal constrained event damping function for another wheel center velocity event having a different peak initial wheel center velocity. A progressive optimal constrained event damping function obtained for a given predetermined initial wheel center velocity U₀ for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length and velocities from U₀ to zero is not an optimal constrained events damping function for a multiplicity of peak initial wheel center velocities.

A preferred aspect of the present invention is a progressive optimal constrained events damping function enabling a motor vehicle suspension system to negotiate a multiplicity of severe events, such as a multiplicity of potholes, with reduced harshness, yet provides very acceptable ride quality and handling during routine events, such as common road surfaces, limits peak loads on the frame structure, reduces wheel travel, and enables lower trim height. This progressive optimal constrained events damping function is a low envelope curve incorporated with the predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below a wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, as previously described, whereby the 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model progressive optimal constrained event damping functions are utilized to construct the low envelope curve.

The low envelope curve according to the preferred aspect of the present invention is generated from a plot consisting of a multiplicity of progressive optimal constrained event damping functions utilizing the 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model by constructing a curve passing through the peak initial damper velocities, from the highest peak initial damper velocity to the lowest peak initial damper velocity, successively, to a predetermined wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, thereafter, whereat a predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center is based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, as previously described. This low envelope curve is incorporated with the predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below a wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, as previously described, to generate the progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the preferred aspect of the present invention.

This progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the preferred aspect of the present invention may not be optimal for a particular given peak initial wheel center velocity U₀ but there is no other events damping function that will not increase the load on the sprung mass for a multiplicity of peak initial wheel center velocities. That is, this progressive optimal constrained events damping function will not increase the load for any given peak initial wheel center velocity U₀ of a multiplicity of peak initial wheel center velocities.

In practice, a quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model, depicted in FIG. 10, is used in the art for suspension design. A most preferred aspect of the present invention employs the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model of FIG. 10 to obtain a progressive optimal constrained events damping function valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length for multiple peak initial wheel center velocities to zero utilizing quarter care model progressive optimal constrained event damping functions. However, an analytical solution utilizing the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model to obtain a progressive optimal constrained event damping function valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length for a given peak initial wheel center velocity from U₀ to zero is not available and numerical techniques are used. The 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model analytical progressive optimal constrained event damping function for a given peak initial wheel center velocity, as previously described, is utilized as the initial function for the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model to obtain a progressive optimal constrained event damping function valid for all displacements of the wheel center from zero to the determined travel length for a given peak initial wheel center velocity from U₀ to zero.

The most preferred aspect of the present invention is a progressive optimal constrained events damping function enabling a motor vehicle suspension system to negotiate a multiplicity of severe events, such as a multiplicity of potholes, with reduced harshness, yet provides very acceptable ride quality and handling during routine events, such as common road surfaces, limits peak loads on the frame structure, reduces wheel travel, and enables lower trim height. This progressive optimal constrained events damping function is a low envelope curve incorporated with the predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below a wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, as previously described, whereby the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model progressive optimal constrained event damping functions are utilized to construct the low envelope curve.

The low envelope curve according to the most preferred aspect of the present invention is generated from a plot consisting of a multiplicity of progressive optimal constrained event damping functions utilizing the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model by constructing a curve passing through the peak initial damper velocities, from the highest peak initial damper velocity to the lowest peak initial damper velocity, successively, to a predetermined wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, thereafter, whereat a predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center is based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, as previously described. This low envelope curve is incorporated with the predetermined damper force acting on the wheel center below a wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model according to the prior art methodology, as previously described, to generate the progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the most preferred aspect of the present invention.

This progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the most preferred aspect of the present invention may not be optimal for a particular given peak initial wheel center velocity U₀ but there is no other events damping function that will not increase the load on the sprung mass for a multiplicity of peak initial wheel center velocities. That is, this progressive optimal constrained events damping function will not increase the load for any given peak initial wheel center velocity U₀ of a multiplicity of peak initial wheel center velocities.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an analytical methodology for the specification of a progressive optimal constrained events damping function that enables a motor vehicle suspension system to negotiate a multiplicity of severe events, such as a multiplicity of potholes, with reduced harshness, yet provides very acceptable ride quality and handling during routine events, such as common road surfaces, limits peak loads on the frame structure, reduces wheel travel, and enables lower trim height.

This and additional objects, features and advantages of the present invention will become clearer from the following specification of a preferred embodiment.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a conventional motor vehicle suspension system, including a control arm, a frame, a spring, a conventional shock absorber and a conventional bumper cushion.

FIG. 1A is a sectional view of a conventional shock absorber.

FIG. 1B is a sectional view of a conventional bumper cushion.

FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic view of a 1DOF motor vehicle suspension system depicting a sprung mass (i.e., vehicle body), unsprung mass (i.e., wheel assembly), a spring, a damper, and a jounce bumper of a motor vehicle.

FIG. 3 is a graph of a plot of suspension spring normal force versus wheel center displacement for a representative motor vehicle.

FIG. 4 is a graph of progressive optimal unconstrained damping force at the wheel center versus wheel center vertical velocity for the representative motor vehicle of FIG. 3.

FIG. 5 is a graph of damper force versus damper velocity for the representative motor vehicle of FIG. 3, showing a first plot of damping for a conventional passive damper, and a second plot of progressive optimal unconstrained damping.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an algorithm for a progressive optimal unconstrained damper force.

FIG. 7A is a flow chart of an algorithm to determine a constant total force for a progressive optimal constrained event damping function.

FIG. 7B is an example of a graph showing exemplar plots for carrying out the algorithm of FIG. 7A.

FIG. 7C is a flow chart of an algorithm for the progressive optimal constrained event damping function.

FIG. 8 is a graph of damper force versus damper velocity, showing a first plot of damping for a conventional passive damper, and a second plot of progressive optimal constrained damping, given the plot of FIG. 3.

FIG. 9 is a graph of total suspension load versus time, showing a first plot of a simulated suspension load having conventional passive damping; a second plot of a simulated suspension load having progressive optimal constrained damping; and a third plot of a simulated suspension load having progressive optimal unconstrained damping.

FIG. 10 is a diagrammatic view of a quarter car model of a motor vehicle suspension system depicting a sprung mass (i.e., vehicle body), unsprung mass (i.e., wheel assembly), a first spring, a damper, a jounce bumper of a motor vehicle, a second spring (i.e., tire), and a road profile.

FIG. 11 is an exemplary diagram of potholes.

FIG. 12 is a graph of a plot of tire spring normal force versus wheel center displacement for a representative motor vehicle.

FIG. 13A is a flow chart of an algorithm to obtain a progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing a 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model.

FIG. 13B is a flow chart of an algorithm to obtain a progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the most preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing a quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model.

FIG. 14 is an example of a graph of damper force versus damper velocity, depicting the construction of the low envelope curve according to the preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing a 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model.

FIG. 15 is an example of a graph of damper force versus damper velocity, depicting the construction of the low envelope curve according to the most preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing a quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model.

FIG. 16A is a graph of force versus time, showing a first plot of suspension load, a second plot of damper force, and a third plot of total force of a conventional passive damping system according to the prior art.

FIG. 16B is a graph of force versus time, showing a first plot of suspension load, a second plot of damper force, and a third plot of total force of a progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Referring now to the Drawing, FIGS. 2 through 16B depict various aspects of the methodology to provide optimized damping in a motor vehicle suspension system.

Generally speaking, the performance of motor vehicles under severe road events is tested using a pavement, which includes a series of potholes. For example, a minor pothole would be a shallow pit, and more pronounced pothole would be a deeper pit capable of causing passengers to feel a bounce; and a “severe event” pothole would be a box-shaped drop-off pit with a hard, square edge at the back.

The following analysis is focused on motor vehicle suspension response to traversal of a “severe event” pothole. During a “severe event” pothole traversal, the wheel first falls into the pothole, followed by the falling body corner, and then, in an already jounced position (compared to nominal trim position), hits a steep bump approximating a step. Tire forces then accelerate the wheel and the suspension goes into a deep jounce. Wheel vertical velocity reaches its peak, about 5 m/s, (MKS units being used herein) sometime through the jounce travel and then decreases to zero at the maximum jounce travel (where the maximum shock tower vertical load is achieved). The deceleration portion of the jounce event (from the maximum wheel speed to zero) employs a one-degree of freedom (1DOF) nonlinear mechanical system model, as described below.

FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic view 200 of a 1DOF motor vehicle suspension system, typically used in the art, depicting the relationship of predetermined sprung mass 202 (i.e., the vehicle body), predetermined unsprung mass m (i.e., the wheel assembly), nonlinear predetermined spring 204, nonlinear damper 206 (i.e., shock absorber, etc.), and jounce bumper 208. Herein, the predetermined sprung mass 202 is referred to simply as the “body” wherein the body serves as the reference for measuring velocity of the unsprung mass and the predetermined unsprung mass m is referred to simply as the “wheel assembly” 216.

In FIG. 2, the velocity, {dot over (x)}, or y (i.e., y={dot over (x)}), in the vertical direction x of the wheel center C_(w) of the wheel assembly 216 with respect to the body 202 is related to the velocity v, in the vertical direction x with respect to the body, of the bottom 214 of damper 206 where it connects to the wheel assembly at point 212, by a predetermined ratio r such that y=v/r. Herein the velocity v is referred to as the damper velocity and the wheel center C_(w) is the centerline of the wheel assembly 216.

The wheel assembly 216 is attached to the body 202 by the nonlinear predetermined spring 204 and by the nonlinear damper 206 (the jounce bumper 208 is usually independently interfaced between the wheel assembly and the body). The displacement of the wheel center with respect to the equilibrium position (nominal trim) 210 is in the vertical direction x and L is the travel length of the wheel center with respect to the equilibrium position in the vertical direction x, which could include a portion of the jounce bumper 208, and also corresponds to the compression length of the predetermined spring 204. The travel length L is less than or equal to a predetermined maximum travel length L_(MAX) in the vertical direction x, as depicted merely by way of example in FIG. 2. The wheel assembly 216 and its mass m, predetermined travel length L, the predetermined maximum travel length L_(MAX), the spring 204, the body 202, and predetermined ratio r are empirically or analytically determined for a particular vehicle or vehicle model by the vehicle manufacturer.

The equation of motion with no external forces acting on the wheel center C_(w) has the following form with the given initial conditions:

m{umlaut over (x)}+F(x)+Φ({dot over (x)})=0, x(0)=x ₀ , {dot over (x)}(0)=U ₀   (1)

wherein x is the displacement of the wheel center with respect to the equilibrium position 210, {dot over (x)} or y (i.e., y={dot over (x)}) is the wheel center velocity with respect to the body 202, {umlaut over (x)} is the wheel center acceleration with respect to the body, Φ({dot over (x)}) is the damper force of the damper 206 as a function of wheel center velocity {dot over (x)}, F(x) is the suspension spring force of the spring 204 acting on the wheel center C_(w) at the displacement x corresponding to a compression of the spring by a displacement x, x(0) is the position of the wheel center at time t=0 with respect to the equilibrium position 210, x₀ is the initial position of the wheel center at time t=0 with respect to the equilibrium position 210, {dot over (x)}(0) is the velocity of the wheel center with respect to the body 202 at time t=0, the travel length L is predetermined, and U₀ is a predetermined peak initial velocity of the wheel center with respect to the body at time t=0 produced by a given predetermined “severe event”. In reality, suspension ride spring and damper are not collocated and wheel center vertical travel is not equal to the damper (shock) displacement. Given the predetermined ratio of damper (shock) travel per unit of vertical wheel center travel, r, y=v/r, wherein v is the damper (shock) velocity, and a predetermined initial damper velocity V₀, U₀ can be calculated from U₀=V₀/r.

For the system 200 described by equation (1), assuming the velocity {dot over (x)}=y=0 when x=L≦L_(MAX), the suspension spring force F(x) of the spring 204 acting on the wheel center C_(w) is equal to F(L). If the total force, F(x)+Φ({dot over (x)}) acting on the wheel center C_(w) during its deceleration from U₀ to 0 is constant and equal to F(L), then the amount of energy dissipated by the damper 206 is maximized, and the total load on the body 202 is minimized. This leads to the following condition:

F(x)+Φ(y)=F(L)=constant   (2)

valid for 0≦x≦L≦L_(MAX), and 0≦y≦U₀ where Φ(y)=Φ({dot over (x)}) represents a smooth, continuous, and monotonically increasing progressive optimal unconstrained damper force of damper 206 as a function of wheel center velocity y.

For initial conditions of the wheel center C_(w) being x(0)=x₀=0 and {dot over (x)}(0)=U₀, when the total force acting on the wheel center during its deceleration from a velocity of U₀ to 0 is constant and equal to F(L) and the progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y=0)=0, then the progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) as a function of wheel center velocity y of equation (2) can be expressed as:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Phi (y)} = {{F(L)} - {F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)}}} & (3) \end{matrix}$

whereby 0≦y≦U₀ and,

$\begin{matrix} {\frac{m \star U_{0}^{2}}{2} = {L \star {F(L)}}} & (4) \end{matrix}$

which represents a kinetic energy constraint and wherein “*” represents a multiplication symbol.

The function

$F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)$

is the suspension spring force of the spring 204 acting on the wheel center C_(w) when the wheel center velocity is y where 0≦y≦U₀.

Since y=v/r and U₀=V₀/r, using equation (3), a progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Ψ₁(v) as a function of damper velocity v can be expressed as:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Psi_{1}(v)} = \frac{\Phi \left( {y = {v/r}} \right)}{r}} & (5) \end{matrix}$

or equivalently as:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Psi_{1}(v)} = {\frac{{F(L)} - {F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{v^{2}}{V_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)}}{r}.}} & (6) \end{matrix}$

The function

$F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{v^{2}}{V_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)$

is the suspension spring force of the spring 204 acting on the wheel center C_(w) when the damper velocity is v where 0≦v≦V₀.

An example of implementation of the foregoing will now be detailed with respect to FIGS. 3 and 4, wherein FIG. 3 is a graph 300 of a plot 302 of suspension spring normal force versus wheel center displacement for a representative motor vehicle; and FIG. 4 is a graph 400 of progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) versus wheel center vertical velocity, plot 402, for the representative motor vehicle of FIG. 3.

Given the wheel assembly mass m and the velocity U₀, the travel length L can be determined from the kinetic energy constraint of equation (4) as follows: A graph of the product of spring displacement x times suspension spring force F(x) (i.e., xF(x)) versus spring displacement x for the predetermined spring 204 is plotted. The point on the x axis of the plot whereat the xF(x) axis equals

$\frac{m*U_{0}^{2}}{2}$

corresponds to the predetermined travel length L where L≦L_(MAX) wherein U₀ is chosen such that L≦L_(MAX). Then F(L) can be ascertained from a graph (as per FIG. 3) of a plot of suspension spring force F(x) versus spring displacement x for the predetermined spring 204. The quantity

$\left\lbrack {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right\rbrack$

in equation (3) can be evaluated for a velocity y, where 0≦y≦U₀, by which the suspension spring force

$F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)$

of the predetermined spring 204 can be obtained from the graph of suspension spring force F(x) versus spring displacement x of the predetermined spring (i.e., FIG. 3). The progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) as a function of wheel center velocity y of the damper 206 can now be determined from equation (3). A plot of the progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) versus y can subsequently be obtained and plotted using equation (3) for various values of y.

Alternatively to the immediately above paragraph, given a travel length L, F(L) can be ascertained from a graph (as per FIG. 3) of a plot of suspension spring force F(x) versus spring displacement x for the predetermined spring 204. Velocity U₀ can be determined from equation (4). The quantity

$\left\lbrack {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right\rbrack$

in equation (3) can be evaluated for a velocity y, where 0≦y≦U₀, by which the suspension spring force

$F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)$

of the predetermined spring 204 can be obtained from the graph of suspension spring force F(x) versus spring displacement x of the predetermined spring (i.e., FIG. 3). The progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) as a function of wheel center velocity y of the damper 206 can now be determined from equation (3). A plot of the progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) versus y can subsequently be obtained and plotted using equation (3) for various values of y.

For example, in FIG. 4 m=55.5 kg, L_(MAX)=0.095 m, L=0.081 m, V₀=2.7 m/s, and r=0.65 from which U₀=2.7/0.65 m/s=4.1538 m/s. From point 304 of FIG. 3, F(L) is, approximately, 5.9 kN for L=0.081 m corresponding to point 404 of FIG. 4, where U₀=4.1538 m/s which agrees with equation (3) where Φ(U₀)=F(L). For a wheel center velocity of, for example, y=2 m/s, the quantity

$\left\lbrack {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right\rbrack = {0.062\mspace{14mu} {and}{\mspace{11mu} \;}{F\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{y^{2}}{U_{0}^{2}}} \right)L} \right)}}$

from point 306 of FIG. 3 is, approximately, 2.8 kN. The progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) from equation (3) is calculated to be, approximately, (5.9−2.8) kN=3.1 kN whereby point 406 of FIG. 4 is obtained. Subsequent points of plot 402 can be similarly obtained for various values of y.

FIG. 5 is a graph 500 of damper force versus damper velocity for the representative motor vehicle of FIGS. 3 and 4, showing a first plot 502 of damping force for a conventional passive damper, and a second plot 504 of progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Ψ₁(v) as a function of damper velocity v.

Given FIG. 4, Ψ₁(v), plot 504, can be determined from equation (5). For example, at point 406 of FIG. 4, Φ(y) is, approximately, 3.1 kN and y=2 m/s by which v=y*r=2*0.65 m/s=1.3 m/s. From equation (5), Ψ₁(v)=3.1/0.65 kN=4.8 kN when v=1.3 m/s, whereby point 506 of FIG. 5 is obtained. Subsequent points of plot 504 can be similarly obtained for various values of y or v.

Ψ₁(v), plot 504, can also be determined from equation (6). For example, for L=0.081 m, F(L) is, approximately, 6.1 kN from FIG. 3. For V₀=2.7 m/s and

${v = {1.3\mspace{14mu} m\text{/}s}},\left( {1 - \frac{v^{2}}{V_{0}^{2}}} \right)$ L = 0.062  m

and F(0.062)=2.8 kN from FIG. 3. From Equation (6), with r=0.65, Ψ₁(v) is calculated to be 4.7 kN whereby point 506 of FIG. 5 is obtained. Subsequent points of plot 504 can be similarly obtained for various values of y or v.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an algorithm 600 for progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) or Ψ₁(v). Algorithm 600 begins at Block 602 and then proceeds to Block 604 whereat the predetermined parameters are obtained. The predetermined parameters include, but are not limited to, m, L_(MAX), r, predetermined spring 204, and V₀ (or U₀, wherein it is understood that U₀=V₀/r) or L. Control then passes to Block 606, which uses equation (4) to determine unknown V₀ or L, whereat F(L) is determined from L from Block 604 using the known suspension spring force versus displacement plot of the predetermined spring 204 as previously described. Control then passes to Block 608 whereat the progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Φ(y) is calculated and plotted using equation (3) as previously described. Control then passes to Block 610 whereat the progressive optimal unconstrained damper force Ψ₁(v) is calculated and plotted using equation (5) or (6) as previously described. Control then passes to Block 612 whereat algorithm 600 ends.

As previously mentioned, in practice, a predetermined damper force φ(y) of damper 206 acting on the wheel center C_(w) below a wheel center velocity u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, is based on ride and handling considerations for a given vehicle or vehicle model as is standard in the art, and should not be altered. The unconstrained progressive optimal damper force Φ(y) obtained from equation (3), described previously, requires some modifications to yield a progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω(y), whereby the predetermined damper force φ(y) of the damper 206 acting on the wheel center C_(w) below a wheel center velocity of u₁, approximately 2.0 m/s, is not altered.

If the total force, F(x)+Φ₁(y), acting on the wheel center C_(w) is a constant equal to C₁, then the following condition applies:

F(x)+Φ₁(y)≡C₁=constant   (7)

by which a smooth, continuous, and monotonically increasing progressive optimal constrained damper force Φ₁(y) of the damper 206, as a function of the wheel center initial position x₀ and the wheel center velocity y, can be expressed as:

$\begin{matrix} {{{\Phi_{1}(y)} = {C_{1} - {F\left( {{\frac{U_{0}^{2} - y^{2}}{2C_{1}}m} + x_{0}} \right)}}},{y \geq u_{2}}} & (8) \end{matrix}$

where x(0)=x₀≦L≦L_(MAX) {dot over (x)}(0)=U₀, {dot over (x)}(t₁)=u₂, and y={dot over (x)}. F(x) in equation (7) is the suspension spring force of the predetermined spring 204 acting on the wheel center C_(w) for a spring displacement x, C₁ is a constant total force acting on the wheel center, and u₂ is an empirically determined velocity of the wheel center, at time t=t₁>0, greater than, but neighboring, u₁. As an example, if u₁ is 2.0 m/s, then u₂ may be 2.69 m/s.

Velocity u₂ is empirically determined such that the transition from the predetermined damper force φ₁(y) at a velocity u₁ to the progressive optimal constrained damper force Φ₁(y) at a velocity u₂ is a damping force produced by a damping force transition function. In practice, the damping force transition function is smooth, continuous, and monotonically increasing from u₁ to u₂ and, preferably, approximates a step function. The closer u₂ is to u₁ the better the approximation to a step function and the lower the total load on the sprung mass 202. However, u₂ should not be chosen too close to u₁ in order to avoid an abrupt change in the event damping function Ω(y) (to be described later), which in turn may increase loads on the sprung mass 202 for smaller potholes than the “severe event” pothole.

Thus, the progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω(y) as a function of wheel center velocity has the following form:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Omega (y)} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{{\Phi_{1}(y)} \equiv {C_{1} - {F\left( {{\frac{U_{0}^{2} - y^{2}}{2C_{1}}m} + x_{0}} \right)}}},} & {y \geq u_{2}} \\ {{{step}\begin{pmatrix} {y,u_{1},{\phi (y)},} \\ {u_{2},{\Phi_{1}(y)}} \end{pmatrix}},{u_{2} > y > u_{1}}} & \; \\ {\mspace{95mu} {{\phi (y)},{u_{1} \geq y \geq 0}}} & \; \end{matrix} \right.} & (9) \end{matrix}$

where step is a damping force transition function having a smooth, continuous, and monotonically increasing transition from φ(y) at velocity u₁ to Φ₁(y) at velocity u₂. Practically, the Haversine step function with a cubic polynomial, well known in the art, is, preferably, used as the damping force transition function.

A progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ψ(v) as a function of damper velocity v can be expressed as:

$\begin{matrix} {{\Psi (v)} = {\frac{\Omega \left( {y = {v/r}} \right)}{r}.}} & (10) \end{matrix}$

The constant total force C₁ (or constant acceleration C=C₁/m) is determined using the following procedure, per the algorithm 700 of FIG. 7A, wherein the equation of motion of equation (1) is numerically solved in conjunction with equation (9) for a determined u₂, and a minimization of the sprung mass load is determined for a time at which {dot over (x)}=0 which corresponds to C₁:

At Block 702, equations (2) through (4) are used to determine F(L) for the case of progressive optimal unconstrained damper force as previously described.

Next, at Block 704, F(L) is varied over an empirically determined range to obtain a C_(1MAX) and a C_(1MIN), for example vary F(L) by plus and minus 10% to obtain C_(1MAX)=F(L)+0.1 F(L) and C_(1MIN)=F(L)−0.1 F(L).

Next, at Block 706, a table is created of the variation of F(L) of Block 704, consisting of q values wherein the first entry is designated C₁₁=C_(1MAX), the last value is designated C_(1q)=C_(1MIN), an arbitrary entry is designated C_(1j), and adjacent values are separated by an empirically determined amount, for example 50 N.

At Block 708, each value in the table of Block 706 is set, starting with C₁₁=C_(1MAX) and ending with C_(1q)=C_(1MIN), equal to −m{dot over (x)} in equation (1) and numerically solved using equation (1) in conjunction with equation (9) using a particular u₂ for the time at which {dot over (x)}=0 or y=0 (i.e., y={dot over (x)}) at which time x corresponds to the travel length of the wheel assembly and F(x) corresponds to the load on the sprung mass 202 at full jounce for that value.

In a first alternative following Block 708, at Block 710, the solved value corresponding to a minimum load on the sprung mass 202 at full jounce is designated as C₁ and the travel length x determined for this entry is the determined travel length L≦L_(MAX) from which F(L) may be obtained from the graph of suspension spring force F(x) versus spring displacement x of the predetermined spring 204 (i.e., FIG. 3).

In a second alternative following Block 708, at Block 712, the load on the sprung mass 202 at full jounce for each value in the table of Block 706, starting with C₁₁=C_(1MAX) and ending with C_(1q)=C_(1MIN), is plotted versus C₁ (or C, where C=C₁/m) wherein the point on the plot whereat a minimum load on the sprung mass 202 at full jounce occurs designates C₁ and the travel length x determined for this entry is the determined travel length L≦L_(MAX) from which F(L) may be obtained from the graph of suspension spring force F(x) versus spring displacement x of the predetermined spring 204 (i.e., FIG. 3).

FIG. 7B depicts an example of a graph 740 of exemplar plots pursuant to the algorithm of FIG. 7A wherein C=C₁/m and, for example m=55.5 kN. For plot 742, if u₂=2.31 m/s, then C₁ is found at point 742 a, whereat C=108.1 m/s² and L=0.080 m. For plot 744, if u₂=2.69 m/s, then C₁ is found at point 744 a, whereat C=110.2 m/s² and L=0.081 m. For plot 746, if u₂=3.08 m/s, then C₁ is found at point 746 a, whereat C=113.4 m/s² and L=0.081 m. Other plots for different u₂ would be similarly evaluated.

Given x₀, r, V₀ or U₀, the wheel assembly m, and C₁, the suspension spring force

$F\left( {{\frac{U_{0}^{2} - y^{2}}{2C_{1}}m} + x_{0}} \right)$

of the predetermined spring 204 can now be determined for any y≧u₂ from the suspension spring force versus displacement plot of the predetermined spring, as for example the plot of FIG. 3. The progressive optimal constrained damper force Φ₁(y) can then be obtained for any y≧u₂. Thus, knowing φ(y), the step damping force transition function, and the progressive optimal constrained damper force Φ₁(y), then the progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω(y) as a function of wheel center velocity y of equation (9) can be obtained for any y where 0≦y≦U₀ by which the progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ψ(v) as a function of damper velocity v of equation (10) can be obtained for any v where 0≦v≦V₀.

FIG. 7C is a flow chart of an algorithm 750 for a progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω(y). Algorithm 750 begins at Block 752 and then proceeds to Block 754 whereat the predetermined parameters are obtained. The predetermined parameters include, but are not limited to, mass m of the wheel assembly 216, L_(MAX), r, the predetermined spring 204, U₀ or V₀, the step damping force transition function, φ(y), u₁, and x₀.

Control then passes to Block 756 whereat C₁ and u₂ are determined as previously described. Control then passes to Block 758 whereat the progressive optimal constrained damper force Φ₁(y) as a function of wheel center velocity is calculated as previously described and the progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω (y) as a function of wheel center velocity is determined from equation (9). Control then passes to Block 760 whereat the progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ψ(v) as a function of damper velocity is determined from equation (10). Control then passes to Block 762 whereat algorithm 750 ends.

FIG. 8 is a graph 800 of damper force versus damper velocity for the representative motor vehicle of FIG. 3, showing a first plot 802 of damping for a conventional passive damper, and a second plot 804 of progressive optimal constrained damping. In FIG. 8, m=55.5 kg, r=0.65, C₁=F(L)=6116 N, C=110.2 m/sec², L=0.081 m, v₁=1.3 m/s, v₂=1.75 m/s, and V₀=2.7 m/s. The predetermined damper force φ(y) is denoted by plot portion 806 of plot 802 extending from the origin, point 808, to point 810 at which the damper velocity v₁ is 1.3 m/s and wheel center velocity u₁ is 1.3/0.65=2.0 m/s. Fourth plot 814 is the step transition function of equation (9) from point 810 to point 812 at which the damper velocity v₂ is 1.75 m/s and the wheel center velocity u₂ is 1.75/0.65=2.69 m/s. The velocity u₂ is determined as previously described. The previously mentioned Haversine step function with a cubic polynomial is used as the transition function from point 810 to point 812.

FIG. 9 is a graph 900 of time versus total suspension load for the representative motor vehicle of FIG. 3, showing a first plot 902 of a simulated suspension load having conventional passive damping; a second plot 904 of a simulated suspension load having progressive optimal constrained damping; and a third plot 906 of a simulated suspension load having progressive optimal unconstrained damping. Point 908 depicts the experimental peak total suspension load using a conventional prior art damper. Point 910 depicts the experimental peak total suspension load using the progressive optimal constrained damping of equation (9).

FIG. 10 is a diagrammatic view 1000 of a quarter car model motor vehicle suspension system in equilibrium (nominal trim), typically used in the art, depicting relationships, as partially presented in FIG. 2, of predetermined sprung mass M 202 (i.e., the vehicle body), predetermined unsprung mass m 216 (i.e., the wheel assembly), nonlinear predetermined first spring 204, nonlinear damper 206 (i.e., shock absorber, etc.), a jounce bumper 208, a nonlinear predetermined second spring 1002 (i.e., tire) whereby F_(T)(x) is the tire spring force due to the compressibility of the tire acting on the predetermined unsprung mass m 216, and predetermined road profile 1004 (i.e., potholes). The displacement x₂ of the body 202 is measured with respect to the equilibrium position 1006 and the displacement x_(g) of the road disturbance (i.e., pothole) 1008 is measured with respect to the equilibrium position 1010.

The predetermined road profile 1004 consists of a multiplicity of different sized potholes wherein a given sized pothole generates a given peak initial wheel center velocity or peak initial damper velocity for a predetermined forward velocity of the vehicle, for example 25 mph, as previously described. Each pothole of the multiplicity of different sized potholes may be, for example, assigned a distinct scale factor corresponding to its severity and peak initial wheel center velocity or peak initial damper velocity that it generates for a predetermined forward velocity of the vehicle, for example 25 mph. Table 1 is an example of such pothole scaling and peak initial damper velocities, wherein each peak initial wheel center velocity equals each corresponding peak initial damper velocity divided by the ratio r as previously described, wherein, for example, r=0.68.

TABLE 1 Pothole Peak Initial Damper Pothole Scale Factor Velocity, V₀ (m/s) 1 1 3.0 2 0.8 2.7 3 0.75 2.5 4 0.6 2.2 5 0.5 1.8 6 0.4 1.5

The equations of motion describing the dynamics of the quarter car model have the following form:

m{dot over (x)}=−F(x−x ₂)−Ω₁({dot over (x)}−{dot over (x)} ₂)−mg−F _(T)(x−x _(g)), x(0)=x ₀ , {dot over (x)}(0)=U ₀   (11)

M{dot over (x)} ₂ =F(x−x ₂)+Ω₁({dot over (x)}−{dot over (x)} ₂)−Mg, x(0)=x ₀ , {dot over (x)}(0)=U ₀   (12)

Load=F(x−x ₂)−Ω₁({dot over (x)}−{dot over (x)} ₂).   (13)

wherein the load on the sprung mass M is denoted “Load”. Ω₁ represents a progressive optimal constrained event damping function for a predetermined pothole resulting in a predetermined peak initial wheel center velocity U₀. Ω₁ is determined through the solution of equations 11 through 13 through the requirement that the load on the sprung mass M, “Load”, is to be minimized. However, unlike the solution for Ω, as given by equation 9, for the equations of motion using the 1DOF motor vehicle suspension model, an analytical solution for Ω₁ is not available. Numerical optimization techniques, well known in the art, are utilized to determine Ω₁ for a predetermined pothole resulting in a predetermined peak initial wheel center velocity U₀. For time effective numerical optimization resulting in a fast convergence for the solution for Ω₁, the progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω having the same predetermined peak initial wheel center velocity U₀ as Ω₁ is utilized as an initial event damping function Ω₁ in equations 11 through 13. Examples of progressive optimal constrained event damping functions obtained in this manner for the quarter car model are presented in FIG. 15.

FIG. 11 is an exemplary diagram 1100 of potholes 1102, 1104, and 1106 and corresponding sizes, wherein line 1108 depicts a level flat road surface. Potholes 1102, 1104, and 1106 correspond to pothole scale factors of 1, 0.8, and 0.6, respectively, of Table 1.

FIG. 12 is a graph 1200 of a plot 1202 of tire spring normal force versus wheel center displacement for a representative motor vehicle. Negative forces denote tire compression and negative distances denote distances below the equilibrium position 1010.

FIG. 13A is a flow chart 1300 of an algorithm to obtain a progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to a preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing the 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model.

The algorithm starts at Block 1302 and proceeds to Block 1304. At Block 1304 a pothole is chosen whereby a peak initial wheel center velocity is determined, as, for example, depicted in Table 1. Control passes from Block 1304 to Block 1306 whereat a progressive optimal constrained event damping function is determined for the selected pothole and peak initial wheel center velocity using the 1DOF motor vehicle suspension system model as previously described. Control passes from Block 1306 to Block 1308, wherein if another pothole is to be chosen, then control passes to Block 1304. Otherwise, control passes to Block 1310, whereat a low envelope curve is obtained, as described below with respect to FIG. 14, after which a progressing optimal events damping function is obtained, according to a preferred aspect of the present invention. Control passes from Block 1312 to Block 1314, whereat the algorithm ends.

FIG. 13B is a flow chart 1350 of an algorithm to obtain a progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to a most preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model.

The algorithm starts at Block 1352 and proceeds to Block 1354. At Block 1354 a pothole is chosen whereby a peak initial wheel center velocity is determined, as, for example, depicted in Table 1. Control passes from Block 1354 to Block 1356, whereat a progressive optimal constrained event damping function is determined for the selected pothole and peak initial wheel center velocity using the quarter car model as previously described. Control passes from Block 1356 to Block 1358, wherein if another pothole is to be chosen, then control passes to Block 1354. Otherwise, control passes to Block 1360, whereat a low envelope curve is obtained, as described below with respect to FIG. 15, afterwhich a progressing optimal events damping function is obtained, according to a most preferred aspect of the present invention. Control passes from Block 1362 to Block 1364, whereat the algorithm ends.

FIG. 14 is an example of a graph 1400 of damper force versus damper velocity, depicting the construction of the low envelope curve 1402 according to the preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing a 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model.

The low envelope curve 1402 in conjunction with the predetermined damper force φ(y) of FIG. 8 denoted by plot portion 806 of plot 802 extending from the origin, point 808, to point 810 at which the damper velocity v₁ is 1.3 m/s and wheel center velocity u₁ is 1.3/0.65=2.0 m/s, previously described, constitutes the progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the present invention. Plots 1404, 1406, 1408, and 1410 are progressive optimal constrained event damping functions generated utilizing the 1DOF nonlinear mechanical system model having peak initial damper velocities of 3.5 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 2.0 m/s, and 1.5 m/s, respectively, at points 1412, 1414, 1416, and 1418, respectively. The low envelope curve 1402 is generated by constructing a curve passing through the peak initial damper velocities at points 1412, 1414, 1416, and 1418, respectively, and extends from point 1412 to point 1420, whereat the damper velocity is 1.3 m/s. The low envelope curve 1402 is incorporated with the predetermined damper force φ(y) of FIG. 8, as previously described, thereby producing the progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the present invention.

FIG. 15 is an example of a graph 1500 of damper force versus damper velocity, depicting the construction of the low envelope curve 1502 according to the most preferred aspect of the present invention, utilizing the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model.

The low envelope curve 1502 in conjunction with the predetermined damper force φ(y) of FIG. 8 denoted by plot portion 806 of plot 802 extending from the origin, point 808, to point 810 at which the damper velocity v₁ is 1.3 m/s and wheel center velocity u₁ is 1.3/0.65=2.0 m/s, previously described, constitutes the progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the present invention. Plots 1504, 1506, 1508, 1510, and 1512 are progressive optimal constrained event damping functions generated utilizing the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model having peak initial damper velocities of 2.7 m/s, 2.5 m/s, 2.2 m/s, 1.8 m/s, and 1.5 m/s, respectively, at points 1514, 1516, 1518, 1520, and 1522, respectively. The low envelope curve 1502 is generated by constructing a curve passing through the peak initial damper velocities at points 1514, 1516, 1518, 1520, and 1522, respectively, and extends from point 1514 to point 1524, whereat the damper velocity is 1.3 m/s. The low envelope curve 1502 is incorporated with the predetermined damper force φ(y) of FIG. 8, as previously described, thereby producing the progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the present invention.

FIG. 16A is a graph 1600 of force versus time, showing a first plot 1602 of suspension load, a second plot 1604 of damper force, and a third plot 1606 of total force of a conventional passive damping system according to the prior art wherein the peak total force is, approximately, 55 kN at point 1608 due to pothole 1 of Table 1.

FIG. 16B is a graph 1650 of force versus time, showing a first plot 1652 of suspension load, a second plot 1654 of damper force, and a third plot 1656 of total force of a progressive optimal constrained events damping function according to the present invention wherein the peak total force is, approximately, 34 kN at point 1658 due to pothole 1 of Table 1.

As used herein, by the term a “constant total force” as applied to the force collectively provided by the spring and the damper acting on the wheel assembly during jounce according to the method of the present invention is meant a force in the general neighborhood of being constant including being exactly constant, i.e., being substantially or essentially constant.

The present invention can be implemented by adjusting the damping response of any suitable damper responsive to the obtained progressive optimal constrained events damping function, as for preferred example by adjusting the damper disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/238,078, filed on Sep. 25, 2008 to inventors William Golpe, Chandra S. Namuduri, Walter Cwycyshyn, and Nikolai K. Moshchuk, the disclosure of which patent application is hereby herein incorporated by reference, or by nonlimiting further example, the damper disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,706,919, to Kruckemeyer et al, issued on Jan. 13, 1998 to the assignee hereof, the disclosure of which patent is hereby herein incorporated by reference.

From the foregoing description, it is seen that the method according to the present invention enables the synthesis of a non-linear compression damping curve to more effectively control the suspension behavior while driving over roads that generate maximum wheel displacements, while maintaining good ride quality on normal roads. Advantageously, the present invention provides: 1) progressive damping (by simulation and vehicle tests) to be an effective method for reducing structural load and wheel travel at a multiplicity of high wheel velocity events (such as potholes); and, 2) an analytical approach based on the quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model, which can be used for generating the optimal compression damping curve that can be subsequently tuned for vehicle production.

To those skilled in the art to which this invention appertains, the above described preferred embodiment may be subject to change or modification. Such change or modification can be carried out without departing from the scope of the invention, which is intended to be limited only by the scope of the appended claims. 

1. A method for providing a progressive optimal constrained damping response of a damper to a wheel assembly with respect to a sprung body, applicable to a multiplicity of jounce events based upon a progressive optimal constrained events damping function, comprising the steps of: determining a first plot of first damper force for acting on a wheel center of a wheel assembly applicable to wheel center velocities below substantially a predetermined wheel center velocity, u₁; for each jounce event of said multiplicity of jounce events, obtaining a second plot of a progressive optimal constrained event damping function generated from at least one predetermined equation of motion of the wheel center, wherein conditions applied to the at least one predetermined equation include no initial external forces acting on the wheel assembly, an initial displacement x₀ of the wheel center when the initial velocity of the wheel assembly is U₀, and a total force acting on the wheel center being substantially constant during deceleration of the wheel center from the velocity U₀ to a predetermined wheel center velocity u₂, wherein the substantially constant total force is related to a determined travel length of the wheel center such that when the wheel center is at the determined travel length, the wheel assembly velocity is zero, the first damper force is zero and the suspension spring is compressed the determined travel length by which the suspension spring force is equal to the substantially constant total force and when the wheel center is at displacement x₀ the wheel assembly velocity is U₀ and the suspension spring is compressed by x₀; obtaining a low envelope curve passing through the initial wheel center velocity of the second plot for each jounce event; combining the low envelope curve with said first plot to obtain the progressive optimal constrained events damping function applicable to the multiplicity of jounce events; and adjusting the damping response of the damper responsive to said progressive optimal constrained events damping function.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein u₁ is substantially equal to 2.0 m/s.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein said equations of motion are derived from a one degree of freedom nonlinear mechanical system model.
 4. The method of claim 3, wherein a first wheel assembly velocity is defined as u₁, and a second wheel velocity is defined as u₂, wherein u₂>u₁, and wherein a second damper force is defined as Φ₁(y), and the suspension spring force is defined as F(x), said method further comprising the step of: determining parameters comprising: mass, m, of the wheel assembly; initial velocity, U₀, of the wheel assembly; and position x₀ of the wheel assembly relative to the predetermined reference when at U₀; wherein ${{F(x)} = {F\left( {{\frac{U_{0}^{2} - y^{2}}{2C_{1}}m} + x_{0}} \right)}},$ and wherein for any wheel assembly velocity, y, relative to the predetermined reference, wherein y≧u₂, said parameters are related by: ${\Phi_{1}(y)} = {C_{1} - {{F\left( {{\frac{U_{0}^{2} - y^{2}}{2C_{1}}m} + x_{0}} \right)}.}}$
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein a smooth and continuous damping force transition is provided between the first damper force at the first wheel assembly velocity u₁ and the second damper force at the second wheel assembly velocity u₂.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein a progressive optimal constrained event damping function of the damper is defined as Ω(y) and has the form: ${\Omega (y)} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{{\Phi_{1}(y)} \equiv {C_{1} - {F\left( {{\frac{U_{0}^{2} - y^{2}}{2C_{1}}m} + x_{0}} \right)}}},} & {y \geq u_{2}} \\ {{{step}\begin{pmatrix} {y,u_{1},{\phi (y)},} \\ {u_{2},{\Phi_{1}(y)}} \end{pmatrix}},{u_{2} \geq y \geq u_{1}}} & \; \\ {\mspace{76mu} {{\phi (y)},{u_{1} \geq y \geq 0}}} & \; \end{matrix} \right.$ where step is a damping force transition function having a smooth and continuous transition from φ(y) at velocity u₁ to Φ₁(y) at velocity u₂; and wherein for a predetermined ratio, r, such that said y=v/r, and v is a velocity of the damper relative to the predetermined reference, a progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ψ(v) as a function of the damper velocity v is given by the relation ${\Psi (v)} = {\frac{\Omega \left( {y = {v/r}} \right)}{r}.}$
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein x is position of the wheel assembly relative to the predetermined reference, and {dot over (x)}=y; and wherein the predetermined substantially constant total force C₁ is determined for any y≧u₂ comprising the steps of: numerically solving an equation of motion of the wheel assembly relative to the sprung mass for a predetermined range of sprung mass loads in conjunction with Ω(y) for a determined u₂, wherein the equation of motion comprises m{dot over (x)}+F(x)+Φ({dot over (x)})=0, x(0)=x₀, {dot over (x)}(0)=U₀; and determining a minimization of the sprung mass load for a time at which {dot over (x)}=0 which corresponds to C₁.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein u₁ is substantially equal to 2.0 m/s.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein said equations of motion are derived from a quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model.
 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the equations of motion are of the form: m{dot over (x)}=−F(x−x ₂)−Ω₁({dot over (x)}−{dot over (x)} ₂)−mg−F _(T)(x−x _(g)), x(0)=x ₀ , {dot over (x)}(0)=U ₀; M{dot over (x)} ₂ =F(x−x ₂)+Ω₁({dot over (x)}−{dot over (x)} ₂)−Mg, x(0)=x ₀ , {dot over (x)}(0)=U ₀; and Load=F(x−x ₂)−Ω₁({dot over (x)}−{dot over (x)} ₂); wherein M represents the sprung mass, Load represents a load on the sprung mass, Ω₁ represents a progressive optimal constrained event damping function for a predetermined pothole resulting in a predetermined peak initial wheel center velocity U₀; wherein Ω₁ is determined through the solution of the equations with the requirement that the Load is minimized; and wherein numerical optimization techniques are utilized to determine Ω₁ for a predetermined pothole resulting in a predetermined peak initial wheel center velocity U₀.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein u₁ is substantially equal to 2.0 m/s.
 12. The method of claim 11, wherein said numerical optimization comprises: firstly utilizing a progressive optimal constrained event damping function Ω derived from a one degree of freedom nonlinear mechanical system model having the same predetermined peak initial wheel center velocity U₀ as Ω₁ in the equations of motion.
 13. A method for providing a progressive optimal constrained damping response of a damper to a wheel assembly with respect to a sprung body, applicable to a multiplicity of jounce events based upon a progressive optimal constrained events damping function, comprising the steps of: determining a first plot of first damper force for acting on a wheel center of a wheel assembly applicable to wheel center velocities below substantially a predetermined wheel center velocity, u₁; for each jounce event of said multiplicity of jounce events, obtaining a second plot of a progressive optimal constrained event damping function generated from one degree of freedom nonlinear mechanical system model equations of motion of the wheel center, wherein conditions applied to the equations include no initial external forces acting on the wheel assembly, an initial displacement x₀ of the wheel center when the initial velocity of the wheel assembly is U₀, and a total force acting on the wheel center being substantially constant during deceleration of the wheel center from the velocity U₀ to a predetermined wheel center velocity u₂, wherein the substantially constant total force is related to a determined travel length of the wheel center such that when the wheel center is at the determined travel length, the wheel assembly velocity is zero, the first damper force is zero and the suspension spring is compressed the determined travel length by which the suspension spring force is equal to the substantially constant total force and when the wheel center is at displacement x₀ the wheel assembly velocity is U₀ and the suspension spring is compressed by x₀; obtaining a low envelope curve passing through the initial wheel center velocity of the second plot for each jounce event; combining the low envelope curve with said first plot to obtain the progressive optimal constrained events damping function applicable to the multiplicity of jounce events; and adjusting the damping response of the damper responsive to said progressive optimal constrained events damping function.
 14. The method of claim 13, wherein u₁ is substantially equal to 2.0 m/s.
 15. A method for providing a progressive optimal constrained damping response of a damper to a wheel assembly with respect to a sprung body, applicable to a multiplicity of jounce events based upon a progressive optimal constrained events damping function, comprising the steps of: determining a first plot of first damper force for acting on a wheel center of a wheel assembly applicable to wheel center velocities below substantially a predetermined wheel center velocity, u₁; for each jounce event of said multiplicity of jounce events, obtaining a second plot of a progressive optimal constrained event damping function generated from quarter car nonlinear mechanical system model equations of motion of the wheel center, wherein conditions applied to the equations include no initial external forces acting on the wheel assembly, an initial displacement x₀ of the wheel center when the initial velocity of the wheel assembly is U₀, and a total force acting on the wheel center being substantially constant during deceleration of the wheel center from the velocity U₀ to a predetermined wheel center velocity u₂, wherein the substantially constant total force is related to a determined travel length of the wheel center such that when the wheel center is at the determined travel length, the wheel assembly velocity is zero, the first damper force is zero and the suspension spring is compressed the determined travel length by which the suspension spring force is equal to the substantially constant total force and when the wheel center is at displacement x₀ the wheel assembly velocity is U₀ and the suspension spring is compressed by x₀; obtaining a low envelope curve passing through the initial wheel center velocity of the second plot for each jounce event; combining the low envelope curve with said first plot to obtain the progressive optimal constrained events damping function applicable to the multiplicity of jounce events; and adjusting the damping response of the damper responsive to said progressive optimal constrained events damping function.
 16. The method of claim 15, wherein u₁ is substantially equal to 2.0 m/s. 